Four men in Detroit were arrested over the past week for posts on social media that the police chief called threatening. One tweet that led to an arrest said that Micah Johnson, the man who shot police officers in Dallas last week, was a hero. None of the men have been named, nor have they been charged.

“I know this is a new issue, but I want these people charged with crimes,” said Detroit Police Chief James Craig. “I’ve directed my officers to prepare warrants for these four individuals, and we’ll see which venue is the best to pursue charges,” he added.

Five police officers were killed in the Dallas shootings, constituting the highest number of police casualties in an attack since September 11. And as a result, law enforcement officials everywhere are suddenly much more sensitive to threats against their lives.

But one result has been that several police departments across the country have arrested individuals for posts on social media accounts, often from citizen tips — raising concerns among free speech advocates.

“Arresting people for speech is something we should be very careful about,” Bruce Schneier, security technologist at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, told The Intercept.

Last weekend in Connecticut, police arrested Kurt Vanzuuk after a tip for posts on Facebook that identified Johnson as a hero and called for police to be killed. He was charged with inciting injury to persons or property.

An Illinois woman, Jenesis Reynolds, was arrested for writing in a Facebook post that she would shoot an officer who would pull her over. “I have no problem shooting a cop for simple traffic stop cuz they’d have no problem doing it to me,” she wrote, according to the police investigation. She was charged with disorderly conduct.

In New Jersey, Rolando Medina was arrested and charged with cyber harassment. He allegedly posted on an unidentified social media platform that he would destroy local police headquarters. In Louisiana, Kemonte Gilmore was arrested for an online video in which he allegedly threatened a police officer. He was charged with public intimidation.

“Certainly, posting that kind of thing on social media is a bad thought,” professor Larry Dubin of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law told the Detroit News. “But having a bad thought isn’t necessarily a crime.”

The policing of online threats is hardly a new issue. The Supreme Court set a precedent last year when it ruled that prosecutors pursuing a charge of communicating threats need to prove both that reasonable people would view the statement as a threat and that the intent was to threaten. Elonis v. United States dealt with a man who had posted violent rap lyrics about his estranged wife; the court reversed his conviction.

“After Dallas, threats may seem more threatening to police officers around the country,” said Daniel Medwed, professor of law at Northeastern University. “We might be seeing more arrests right now because the police will interpret that they have probable cause to make the arrest,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean in the end that this will result in convictions,” he added.

Schneier urged that law enforcement use caution. “This is complicated,” he said. “We don’t know how to do this — we’re doing it pretty badly, and we should do it better.”

But he said it was a sign of the times. These days, almost all communications are recorded in some capacity. “This new world where things aren’t forgotten is going to be different,” Schneier said. “And you’re seeing one manifestation of it in casual comments that are resulting in arrest.”

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Related

Contact the author:

This is, by far, one of the most egregious acts of overreach of government.

Let me preface my comment by agreeing with the Supreme Court that freedom of speech does not include shouting FIRE in a crowded movie theatre. Arresting someone for directly threatening anyone online, should be taken seriously and investigated. That being said, the four in Detroit are granted their right to free speech under the constitution. Their comments are not a direct threat, nor are their comments an indirect threat.

Americans are seeing our constitutional rights being arbitrarily taken from us by hyper vigilant police militias. From denying our right to peacefully assemble by vast numbers of militant law enforcement in riot gear, down to traffic stops involving frightened officers undertrained in conflict resolution, overly-trained in use of force, and all too eager to shoot their way out of danger.

These are trying times. Emotions are running high on law enforcement. And emotions are genuinely running high in our communities. We have had to bear witness to more and more footage of police officers, shooting unarmed citizens.

Like it or not, unrestricted speech enables human beings to psychologically process the severity of the murders and assaults and erosion of stability that surround them. Our streets are very hostile places for many in the U.S.
There exists a hopelessness and an accompanying battle trench mentality. The forum to speak freely releases stress, and it is an asset.

There does exist a small justification and sense of self in telling the rest of the world how you feel through scribing your emotions in words and then hitting the return key and sending it out for all to read. These are “comments” and the ones presented here, can hardly be considered to be direct or even indirect threats. Americans should be allowed to say whatever we want to, it is the cornerstone of our constitutional rights.

As so many have pointed out and I have been saying for the longest the police have a GOD complex. I understand you are the authority but because someone questions your authority is not justification for you to abuse and kill. Fucking with people because you feel they are not “good guys”. How about you abuse some of your fucking brothers in blue that you know aren’t “good guys”. So you save some lives, help some people or give a few a break when they commit a minor violation. That doesn’t mean shit when you are terrorizing someone else the next day. Oh and for those of you that think you are in the right because you haven’t committed any horrible acts you are just as guilty if you know who is abusing and not doing anything about it. You can’t keep slapping a man upside the head and expect him not react eventually.

Arresting people for these non-crimes will only make things worse. Do the authorities not get it? It is the decades of harassment in increasing degrees that is leading to the existing situation. Instead of abusing people more, they have to leave them alone. Don’t go stopping people in traffic for no good reason and confiscating their cash just because they have it. Don’t go busting into people houses without a solid reason first. Don’t bother people just because they are walking down the street. It is not only against blacks and Latinos; it is also going on against white. Those who get kill are not the main issues. The main issue is the millions who are harassed and locked up without reason. the one whom the cops lie about in court. You create the atmosphere of abuse, then it all will break lose some day. And when the day comes, millions of white who have abuse will join forces with the minorities to overthrow the government. Change your ways before it is too late. Leave the people be.

As SomeGuyInAWaistcoat so astutely pointed out earlier, millions–MILLIONS–of stalking victims have gone to police scared out of their minds by threats on social media (among other stalking behaviors) and are routinely told that nothing can be done unless the perpetrator(s) act on those threats and hurt someone.

Yet, when the police are threatened on social media, OH, THAT’S A WHOLE OTHER STORY!!! Maybe it’s good for the cops to be a little scared, to understand what it’s like to be a victim.

If such criticism is now punishable by law, why haven’t those who call for the death of the potus been charged? Double standard or what? I’m not saying it’s right, but let the law treat everybody equally for a change!

I dont quite understand how this is helping the police at all. The only thing they have accomplished is proving slot of them are rogue and have a vendetta. Having a God complex is dangerous to everybody. Every citizen regardlesss of race is at risk.

The post in the Detroit arrest simply said that the poster thought Johnson was a hero. I will not make a value judgement on that view but I do question where the threat was in that post. Our first amendment gives us the right to have and express our own opinions. Calling Johnson a “Hero” is an opinion not a threat. The police should be more concerned with why someone would be of that opinion. I agree that we do not have the right to threaten or induce panic but we should never give up our right or the right of others to express their opinions no matter how much we may disagree with them.

Publishing threatening content: From the New York Times to my local newspaper and from the evening news broadcasts to local tv news affiliates, I see threatening content.
Virtually every day, there is another report, story, video or other related content that serves as a practical “How to” manual instructing law enforcement on standard procedure to summarily murder citizens who pose no threat to the police or community in general. Virtually every day, there is another “posting,” story or article which instilling greater confidence among police agencies that they can easily and successfully murder citizens — particularly people of color or people who are poor, disadvantaged or otherwise vulnerable — without any fear of criminal, civil or even employment related punishment or other accountability.
-cl

Everyone loves to claim all this under the guise of “freedom of speech”. Sadly most these “idiots” to be blunt have no idea about how their rights work. Making promotions of wanting to harm police or destroy a police building/car. Stuff like that promotes doing this kinda stuff ISN’T protected by the 1st. Even though most people that post that on their social media believes it does. Its a threat against someone else’es live and/or property and you can be JAILED for it.

Also for stupid people. For instance, the first amendment should protect argument that killing police is good for society, but not some idiot calling for that action directly. I would bet the average iq of these folks getting busted for Facebook threats is below 90.

This is total garbage. I can’t tell you how many people, myself included, who have asked or requested some sort of police assistance or even advice when it comes to people being verbally threatened, abused, etc. once when I worked at a bank, I was robbed while at work by a man who hopped over the counter and Held a knife to my throat, and about 2 months before the court trial was to start I started being harassed, followed, they found out where I lived and I wouldn’t answer the door but they would try to turn the door handle, walk around the property checking Windows and the back door, even where my mom lived and all sorts of people were coming to try to intimidate me out of testifying against the defendant (bank robber). I went to the police and the attorneys at the DA’s office about it. I asked the police if maybe they could have an officer patrolling my moms neighborhood slightly more often or could I make a police report, anything. I just didn’t want these people bothering my mom of all people. She had nothing to do with anything. The cops told me there was nothing they could do, unless they actually break in or do something. The Attorney at the DA’s office was even more lame, and was not concerned with my specific situation and defended the attorney representing the robber. The system is such a scam, it’s only goal is to receive money. Most don’t care about the actual laws. Or if someone is in danger. It’s all about profit. If you generate or attract profit, then you’re worthless. It’s a cold and ugly system. Full of corruption. Yes there’s some good cops. But it’s very rare. Especially these days

Generally finding and charging people that say crap like that online costs a lot of $ and end result only small fine and community service. So going after people wasn’t really worth it. In the wake up Dallas that changed the game and now they are cracking down on these threats to show hopefully prevent it happening again.

All of you saying this is a violation of Freedom of Speech need to get an education and learn what free speech is.

Free speech was drafted specifically to allow people to express their opinion of the government without fear of punishment of some sort.

But it DOES NOT include the right to use hate speech and make terroristic threats. It doesn’t allow you to slander someone, to incite riots, to say something that leads to injury, etc.

If you make comments saying the police should be killed, that’s hate speech and threatening. It’s against the law.

Also, know the facts on crime before you accuse the police of being the problem. Black males commit over half the crime in every country, not just America, even though they’re less than 10% of the population.

They also attack the police more than other races. Despite these facts, they actually get shot less than White people.

Listen to just about any rap song. What do you hear? Rape a bitch and murder a nigga. That’s the “culture”. But you continue to put the blame on cops who defend themselves against the very criminals who are the real reason why Black people are getting killed.

Get off your lazy asses, millennials. Stop letting yourselves be brainwashed by bullies and criminal sympathizers. I’m sure you’ll make the typical accusations of “troll” and accuse me of being a Trump supporter.

All that does is confirms your laziness. You lack the intellectual ability to form your own opinions, including your responses to arguments you don’t like. It’s no wonder you so easily buy into this nonsense.

The following statement is FALSE and pathetic nonsense. — “Black males commit over half the crime. . . in America even though they are less than 10% of population.”
(NOTE: in the U.S., black men comprise approximately 4% of the population).

Black men DO NOT commit “over half the crime” in the U.S. The farcical claim regarding “half the crime” is an objectively and egregiously false assertion.

Black men, certainly, are deliberately targeted, arrested and prosecuted at astronomically higher percentage levels compared to white males or the population in general. Ironically, one of the few areas of basic equality in the U.S. related to black & white men, is that they commit crimes at essentially the same rate/level/% etc. Tragically, “committing” crime, as opposed to being targeted for criminal prosecution, are completely separate and grossly unrelated issues when it comes to black/white crime.

As to “[I’ll surely receive] the typical accusations of “troll,”” I, for one, do not consider you to be a troll. You are most certainly a statistically & factually challenged bigot. Nevertheless, you appear to be expressing your ignorance in good faith. You therefore are not a troll; rather you are merely a case study in manipulatively frightened right-wing insularity.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.

The Angry Cenrist — nearly everything you said is wrong on at least one level, but I’ll address your errors on free speech.

The First Amendment does protect hate speech — see Snyder v. Phelps. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what hate speech is. Generally, its offensive or insulting speech directed at a person based on a particular trait or characteristic, not a chosen occupation.

The First Amendment also protects condoning violence or even advocating for it — see Brandenburg v. Ohio. There’s a big difference between saying “we should kill cops” in a general Facebook post and saying “I’m going to kill Cop X” on such and such date. The first statement is protected, the second statement probably isn’t.

All they need to do is charge these people with providing material support to terrorists and they’ll get twenty to thirty years in prison. Slam dunk. The Supreme Court eviscerated the First Amendment in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

they have created this suspicion and hatred themselves by failing to recognize systematic issues in the police force…if they’re upset that people hate them, maybe they should focus on their actions and WHY people dislike them instead of focusing on censorship

The problem is that the police are not asking themselves “Why do people want to harm us?” They are not looking at the violence committed by cops as a problem. They are not looking at the way they are recruited and trained…recruited for low IQ and high psychopathy when it should be the other way around. No. Police and their defenders are basically saying “Tough nuggies, we get to kill whomever wherever and whenever we want with impunity.” That is not acceptable. There will continue to be cops killed, probably m ore and more, as they continue to behave like thugs.

And how the cops treat people really depends on what part of town you’re in. If you’re in the hills/north side/down town, they’re usually pretty alright. If you’re in West Berkeley, it’s a very different story altogether. I will admit that our cops are way better than the ones in Oakland though.

So, all those times when police tell women who’re experiencing death threats and harassment on social media that they can’t really do anything about social media harassment, it turns out not to be the case if it’s their own receiving the same?

I was watching the American coverage of the Euro 2016 football, and there were the usual scenes of English and A.N.Other nations’ (in this case, Russia’s) football hooligans beating the merry fucks out of each other all in the name of an Adrenaline Fix. This was then followed by fans of Croatia lighting flares and throwing them onto the pitch, in the midst of which a flash-bang was thrown at a steward, all in the name of protesting their Football Association. Ugly and unwanted scenes, yes, but familiar and nothing new to anyone watching football since the 1950s and maybe even before.

What WAS interesting and new was the reaction of both the American commentators – otherwise excellent – and their sympathetic European experts, who started describing these scenes in terms of “terrorism” and constantly refering to the not-so-recent any more terror attacks in France – a EUFA represetnative going so far as to call the perpetrators “Sports Terrorists”.

This is the dangerous times we live in, when anything even slightly undesirable can be declared a Terrorist witch and hunted and burnt. Football is arguably the greatest media event on Earth right now. In England, 1.5 MILLION people attend football matches AT EVERY LEVEL every weekend. The numbers are similar in Germany, Spain, Italy, and Brazil and it is massive all over the world from Cairo to Canberra. That a few hundred drunken fucks wanted to punch each other during that media carnival is NOT TERRORISM. That a few right-wing bigots have an axe to grind with David Sukar and the Coratian FA is NOT TERRORISM.

The War or Terrorism is the license to tar every incident and problem with the same brush, it is the 21st Century equivalent of Witch Hunts. Was this shooting the act of a terrorist? No. Were the comments made on Facebook? No. So why is called such? Because it suits the Powers-that-Be. They LOVE seeing terrorism everywhere. They love the control, they love the spying, they love the draconian laws, they love the public fear. As Terrorism deals in Terror, so they are the Terrorists.

Exactly. The first thing I said after learning of the 911 attack was something to the extent of, “I don’t know who did this or for what specific reason, but it will give the rich and their lackeys in government to create even more of a police state than we already have.” I would really loved to have been proven wrong, but unfortunately I wasn’t.

no it is not.
i used to think threats of any sort upon another would be a crime but then i read about some fellow on a train in new york who was surrounded by a group of punks. They stole his operating space, his comfort, and freedom of movement. He fought back. HE WAS CONVICTED.

The USG and agencies steal people’s time. For instance, under threat and duress, the IRS forces people to fill out forms, theft of time, or perhaps it is unlawful arrest. Then they also lay traps by initiating complexity and confusion to trip people up so they can then extort them for much more.

Now there is a presidential candydate named Hillary Clinton who wants to steal people, to take them by force, getting them killed by mandating the draft for women. And she wants more NATO and more war. What sort of monstrous threats she makes but is not arrested for that?

Then wallstreet threatens the lives and livelyhoods of all americans with their false fraudulent ways and are they arrested for those threats to all americans?

nah. Threats have become standard operating procedure. You are probably referring to one instance of a threat by type – that which threatens power.

“This new world where things aren’t forgotten is going to be different,” Schneier said. “And you’re seeing one manifestation of it in casual comments that are resulting in arrest.”
Another manifestation of it is cops being killed and if they want to arrest people for their speech, then more cops will be killed. Reap/sow.

Actually, not that many cops are being killed, despite their lies and propaganda. Cops kill far more people than cops who are killed. I used to be a trucker, and that job was more dangerous than being a cop.

The problem here is that by brainwashing people that being a cop is a lot more dangerous than it really is, the police state has convinced people that the safety of cops is a huge issue. Unfortunately, this phony problem has made it so that cops now value their own safety above that of everyone else (well, maybe not the safety of upper middle- and upper class people), so they kill every Black person who might even move a finger in a manner they consider threatening.

Oh wonderful, let’s just accept that thugs can come and abduct me from my home, probably killing my dog in the confusion, but its totally cool because as long as I have a good lawyer nothing will probably stick and I get to be “free” again?

Now given this knowledge, why exactly should one not treat every cop as at least a potential threat, if not an imminent one? And would logic not point to defaulting to “imminent” and acting accordingly, given how violent this group of individuals can be?

I have no sympathy for the poor little police. I had a cyber stalker sending threats and showed an officer in REAL TIME, the threats as they were posted. This officer didn’t even file the report! He just told me to call emergency if the person showed up at my door. So, sorry, but no sympathy here.

It would appear, the Police hierarchy in the U.S. flatly refuse to learn from the lessons that are becoming glaringly obvious, that they are waging a war on the citizenry of the U.S. on behalf of the 1% ers.
It appears right from the top, aspiring candidates for President can lie, twist and turn everything upside down, have masses of blood on her hands and walk away scott free of accountability for any of her immoral, illegal actions. From that example, the law enforcement follow suit, to protect people like that at all cost, (usually high to the citizenry ) and follow in their footsteps of the illegal behavior being protected at every turn by that establishment. The attitude of the Police, in the follow up of the events at Dallas, re-inforce this 100%. Did the Police learn anything at all from those events, regarding their behavior towards the citizenry of the U.S. ? You bet they did, the lesson they learned was, ” we have a green light to continue as we are doing, AND in fact we have approval to even INCREASE what we are doing”.
This behavior will never end, until it comes to a natural conclusion which will, IMHO, be very messy indeed for all concerned. There is no avoiding it whatever.

“After Dallas, threats may seem more threatening to police officers around the country,” said Daniel Medwed, professor of law at Northeastern University. “We might be seeing more arrests right now because the police will interpret that they have probable cause to make the arrest,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean in the end that this will result in convictions,” he added.

…But that isn’t the point. Clearly the goal here is not to get convictions, but just to intimidate, harass, and remind people “who’s in charge.”

I suspect they’d have a hard time keeping up with their “arrests for tweets that scare us” program, even if it had the slightest basis in law, considering the endless stream of videos showing the world just how recklessly (eagerly!) they use deadly force.

“[Police chief] Jerry Dyer said he would not release the name of the officers out of fear for their safety. “I don’t want anything to happen in our city like it happened in Dallas.”

That’s an example of the Police again exploiting the shootings of the police in Dallas for the purpose of abusing the public and stifling demonstrations with military robo cop insanity, as they did in Baton Rouge, and keeping what should be public information from the public. This is why the diversionary so called conversation about “rebuilding” trust between cops and community is and will remain dead on arrival.

I thought neoliberalism was on the way out but obviously it’s not. The polices are helping keep it alive and well. What law outlaws angry thoughts and writing them down. Is it in the law enforcement’s bible? Hate crime? I don’t think so. So what law did these people break?

No, it is not. People have been complaining about being directly and explicitly threatened online for years only to be brushed off by law enforcement and told if they don’t want to deal with online harassment they should stay off the internet. Amazing how quickly the police act when it’s directed at them.

The Orwellian nightmare continues, and this time, even casual low-level Black Lives Matter members are saying this event was staged. When it comes to false flags, never forget to ask… “Cui Bono?” Who will benefit? And what is the ultimate gain?

The times when he’s “incited violence” is towards violent protesters. He’s been established from early on in his campaign as a “counter-puncher” and him having the gall to do it is what got him a lot of support from Republicans upset with their spineless politicians. He seems to bemore tame now compared to duringthe primaries, probably because of his advisors telling him to be more careful.

If you went to one of Trump’s rallies, you would see how protesters there act. Hint: They’re obnoxious ankle-biters and social justice warriors who scream your ear off, bur American flags, and sometimes attack or evangelize Trump supporters’ vehicles. And let’s not forget the Chicago rally where it was completely shut down by “peaceful” protesters.

LaChance’s piece shows that with a thousand people killed by police last year, and more than 500 this year, the trail of benefits from the false-flag-Dallas-sniper leads to the real problem of escalating overt police state methods: More military gear, gassing and arresting peaceful protestors, escalating white supremacist rhetoric within police departments, immediately and illegally detaining eye witnesses and illegally seizing video recordings.

And now, police state trolls (like charliethreeee) helping Detroit and other cities to fraudulently arrest people for first amendment exercises by wrongfully classifying speech as threats, after years of stalking private citizens through their social media accounts.

America had been a domestic war zone since 9/11, and now the extreme right-wingers at national security agencies are no longer hiding their agenda in destroying the last slivers of democracy, in pushing away civil rights progress, in encouraging law enforcement agencies to implement their domestic torture programs.

This reads just like a PATRIOT Act version of the police/Klan/FBI collaborations in Mississippi during the civil rights era, or the DoD/FBI/police/white supremacist collaborations during the 1970’s reign of terror in Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

None of us should be fooled otherwise. Quoting Charles Cobb of SNCC, “What are you going to do?”

Let’s see some examples. I have seen a few comments that could fall under numerous laws. Criticizing police? Or CALLING FOR THEIR DEATHS? I have seen more than a few calling for their deaths. Though they let that one woman off with an APOLOGY a couple of months before Dallas. I bet she feels lucky! I am no fan of police brutality, but calling for anyone’s death is screwed up. If someone sends me a death threat the police will ACT upon it. They deserve the same consideration.

“Arresting people for speech is something we should be very careful about.” No, arresting people for speech is something we should oppose.
“But having a bad thought isn’t necessarily a crime.” No, having a bad thought, or a thought that someone thinks is bad, is NOT a crime.

Exactly. It is really disturbing that a law professor is apparently implying that bad thoughts generally are crimes. I do not see any other way to interpret what he said, unless it was quoted badly out of context.

Over at The Intercept, your quote to the Detroit News was picked up and included in this article. Here is the exact wording:

“Certainly, posting that kind of thing on social media is a bad thought,” professor Larry Dubin of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law told the Detroit News. “But having a bad thought isn’t necessarily a crime.”

In the discussion “below the line,” as we say, we’ve been wondering whether you were quoted correctly and in context. As you can probably imagine, it seemed a little odd to us that an American law professor would imply that a “bad thought” could ever be a crime.

You are either incredibly ignorant or a liar. The DOJ, while often declining to do so and rarely producing convictions in such cases even when they bother, is examining doing exactly that in the Eric Garner case. They would not do it if they did not have jurisdiction in the first place:

Prosecutors with the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn, whose jurisdiction also extends to Staten Island, Queens and Long Island, have expressed doubts that they can prove in court that a crime had been committed; their counterparts in Washington have claimed that they are confident they have sufficient evidence to proceed.

The DOJ prosecutes cops relatively infrequently, but it does have jurisdiction — all politically literate people know this, but charliethreee is an illiterate troll. The reason the DOJ prosecutes rarely is because it’s only current remit is for violation of civil rights, which includes an intent element difficult to prove.

Several federal lawmakers are proposing legislation to expand this so that the DOJ would also have authority to charge officers with simple murder and/or manslaughter.

He really is a troll — I don’t use that word cavalierly. He’s not here for intelligent discourse. All he’s ever done is spew out a lot of (usually erroneous) claims to see what sticks, all while claiming he’s so very leftwing and “concerned” about the writers here.

“They would not do it if they did not have jurisdiction in the first place”

I love how you point out that 1% of my position is inaccurate to justify calling me a 100% liar! That is awesome! Okay so you got me on this. How do you propose to shoot down all the other things I said? If this is the only criticism you can make of my position, than I can’t be that wrong.

Thank you for admitting that you lied….and/or wer too lazy to be bothered looking it up. The assertions you make here, disproved repeatedly by other posters are what get you labeled. Perhaps you should be more careful about the *facts you assert.

The title of that article is highly misleading, those people were not arrested for merely criticizing the police, they were arrested for threatening the lives of police officers. That distinction is not a small one.

And do you think that Pastor Roger Jimenez should be arrested for his remarks during a sermon after 50 people were murdered in an Orlando gay nightclub?

“Hey, are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today? No … I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida’s a little safer tonight. The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die.”

Firstly, the man who called the killer a hero also called for police to be killed, according to that very article. Is it threatening enough for you?
Secondly, you’ll really have to explain to me how emitting death threats on social media is in any way, shape or form self-defence.
Thirdly, you completely fail to address my previous statement. How the police reacted to those threats is indeed discussable but it has little to do with the fact that the title of the article is dishonest.

I think if you want things to change in these respects, it is probably best to reappoint new judges at every level who do not just kneejerk react to an excessive case of police vioence with a judgment of “justifiable use of force” verdict. Because in 99.5 % of these cases as we have seen them go to trial, the cops always walk, and they walk with a wink and nod from a judge. It is time for judges to place individuals’ rights ahead of the “rights” of the state. You are not going to get that with the current law enforcement environment, as it is set down from the judiciaries as they are currently comprised. Someone ought to tally, really, the amount of these pro-cop assault judgments in those cases, per judge, and then, place that before the public to review when judges are re-elected or appointed. Because that bias flows from the top down, pro-police, pro-state, and only incidentally pro-citizen. And get rid of the “dope war,” especially on soft drugs. Bad laws breed disrespect for all the good ones.

The arrested for intimidating language sword cuts both ways. How many cops use the same kind of language against suspects or innocent people?

I think the people should start monitoring the cops’ language 24/7. My guess is that there is a corelation between the amount of intimidating language used by cops and the number of people they shoot unnecessarily.

One wonders how a person gets to be a law professor with such a limited understanding of U.S. history. He has obviously never heard of the “Red Scares” of past decades.

If only those professors would listen to you, but thinking in such ways is part of their existential functional illusions and by the way Obama didn’t even know how many states there were.

I have kept asking USG without getting an answer yet, why did they blacklist my @ss in the federal criminal index. Yet, one thing I did figure out: It doesn’t really matter. you just become a targeted individual (Mona, I love you darling) for reasons ranging from being a(n even slightly) independent thinker to their need to justify salaries.

Friends of mine were telling me that for example at the UN you would receive mysterious letters telling you “to prove you are their (wo)man”, by “just” faxing the letter to an included fax number. If you don’t within a certain period of time, all kinds of strange things start happening to you. If you dare to go to your supervisor or start asking around what that letter means you will even have a more inexplicably strange future life. They were telling me at the UN people say “it is nothing”, to “just” fax that letter back and “that is it!” During inquisition times the Catholic Church used to do strikingly similar things (of course, for the idiots and shills here, instead of using fax machines they used mailed letters addressed to unknown recipients at never heard of places).

If non-fiction is too difficult I suggest starting with “1984” or “Fahrenheit 451?.

So your theory is that you should have the freedom to make any threat your precious heart desires …

Actually, let’s put aside Hill’s “theory” as you choose to call it. Why is it then that USG constantly makes threats and abusively attacks people who can’t defend themselves on an equal basis?

It is like an abusive husband, father, telling a kid he is not supposed to use foul language while in the play ground (kids do that), but then he does not only beat up and neglect kids and wife at home “as a matter of course”, but sees it as being “responsible”. Not too long ago it was enough just the opinion of husband to institutionalize wife. Not even a doctor, but well that was not abusive, because it was the “law” …

This speech is anti-tyranny speech, constitutionally protected speech of the highest order. It’s just another version of “Give me liberty or give me death!” I hope the ACLU jumps on this and sues each of these police departments for civil rights violations/free speech violations.

It’s obvious the Dallas police haven’t picked up a copy of recently passed HRC32 from the UN Human Rights Council yet. Y’know, the one that says the Internet is a place of free expression and censorship is unwelcome in any circumstance.

If the Dallas police don’t want to be bullied by Netizens they should do what they tell victims of Internet bullies to do – get the fuck off the Internet.

““We might be seeing more arrests right now because the police will interpret that they have probable cause to make the arrest,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean in the end that this will result in convictions,””

Incredible. The US has already demonstrated enemies can and will be incarcerated indefinitely without being charged, having the benefit of counsel nor ever going to trial. Kalief Browder is an example of someone incarcerated for years in a municipal jail system, and physically abused during that incarceration, without benefit of trial. In 2013 the United States held the highest estimated pretrial detention population on an average day with 487,000 people in pretrial custody. What difference would a dismissal make to someone who died while in custody? What remains of a life after years of brutal incarceration for a charge that might eventually be dismissed at trial?

First let us deal with facts about police and their pay and danger on the job as all seem to be ignorant or purposely lying. The police are definitely lying as they know what they are really paid and if not totally stupid they know they do not have such a dangerous job.

When the Chief of Police of Dallas said officers risk their lives for only $40,000/year making it look like average pay. I ask the Chief “Do you even have any idea of what you are paid and if you know what you are paid how do you not know what your officers are paid. How do you do your budget Chief when you do not know what the money is?”

Fact, The Chief of the Dallas Police said officers risk their lives for only $40,000/year. According to my entering “Average pay of a Dallas police officer” it said the over $40,000/year at the lowest entry with no college to go to the academy. How do they make $40,000/year as average pay? Do they lose income when becoming a full officer out of the academy? The chief and all others on the national news outright lied to promote this fake ideology.

Now to the danger of the job. Did you know that the U.S. Dept. of Labor stats say the a police officer has a better chance of dying from suicide than getting shot by a idiot on the street?

The most dangerous job in the U.S. is a shell fisherman in Alaska who makes maybe $34,000/year and their death rate is 27.3/100,000. A police officer death rate is only 4.3/100,000.

If the Chief of the Dallas Police wants a real dangerous job how about trimming palm trees and have a chain saw come and get you. That is a dangerous job and so is being a roofer.

Time, as all said, to deal with facts on the ground like police killing unarmed people since 2003 against the 2003 DOJ Agreement with the LAPD concerning “Internal Affairs” and the lack of enforcement as also the Federal 9th Circuit Court told Kamala Harris and all criminal D.A.’s in California last year in the L.A. Times to stop charging people with crimes the D.A.’s know are not real just to obtain convictions no matter the guilt or innocence. Then look at the insane D.A. in Orange County with the 8 homicides and the murder case he will not allow the testing of the DNA so an innocent man can be released. We are a criminal country and I call it Amerikkka.

“Did you know that the U.S. Dept. of Labor stats say the a police officer has a better chance of dying from suicide than getting shot by a idiot on the street?”

If the job tends to drive one to suicide, wouldn’t that explain why many are making bad decisions? When you see the worst life has to offer day in and day out… when you do not have a healthy life where you have fun while off work to forget about the crap at work… people tend to make mistakes, people tend to get disillusioned in that scenario.

How lovely is it that I’m being accused of being a cop, a plant for the FBI, all this nonsense fantasy bullcrap just by saying something different than the narrative that cops are terrorists, that we live in a criminal country called Amerikkka…

BTW how lovely is it that my comments are awful but nobody criticizes the yahoos using terms like Amerikkka!

I know the answer: the answer is that some of you hippies have gone of the deep end. You are getting radicalized. Cheering the death of officers is really not much different than cheering 9/11.

So WHO ARE YOU? Do you want to make our country better through progressive politics or do you want to burn it to the ground?

I am not justifying police violence. I am just as upset about it as you are. The only difference between your opinion and mine is that I do not think racism is the primary cause of the violence.

I think the mistakes police officers make is primarily a result of burnout, stress and lack of training.

The reason why I am complaining about how I’m characterized is because many of you are not accurately characterizing me. For example, you just said I’m justifying their bad decisions… I’m not. You are assuming that about me.

For example, you just said I’m justifying their bad decisions… I’m not. You are assuming that about me.

True, you explained, not justified, in that sentence, but overall, what you write appears to be a justification of how the police treat blacks.

More detail on the racism issue. The latest study I am aware of says that the number shot by policemen is not a function of race. But it does say that the overall handling of people by the police is a strong function of race. So of course people are going to be most upset about members of their race being shot even if that number is not by itself an indication of racism, numbers that they do not have in any case. You cannot treat people very badly for hundreds of years and claim racism is not involved in shooting them.

But you seem to be denying that racism has any role at all. That is certainly not true, but it is certainly one thing that many here find so despicable about what you write.

Wouldn’t it be great if this issue were taken seriously for all people. it is a bit too threatening to have someone say they are going to kill you or burn down your property on social media. i think it warrants an arrest and investigation to protect the people. The KKK and others have been doing this too long as well, with no consequences. Police want targeted crimes against them to be deemed hate crimes, and I think that is a good idea too, because -equality under the law. we will fight more for cops to be protected, and if they are then we all are. it is the same for black americans. they have fought several civil rights battles for themselves, that then have been extended to all citizens. we should thank them, and our cops. after all, the cops reflect larger society -racism doesn’t start in a blue uniform- it starts in our family/community/national stories tied to our shared cultural history.

Why was Jason Van Dyke, the former corrupt officer who murdered Laquna McDonald hired by the FOP?

Why were the officers who witnessed the murder and knowingly and with full intent filed false reports not charged with accessory to murder after the fact.

Why were the DA, the Police chief and the Mayor not charged with obstruction of justice.

This is clear and unobstructed corruption with iron clad video and paper evidence. Yet nothing is done.

In many videos of police shootings there are many discrepancies that are always brought up to defend the police action. In the case of Laquan McDonald and Michael T. Slager’s, murder of Walter Scott we have clear evidence of both the murders and the coverups.

Why are the corrupt officers and government officials not being prosecuted?

The police and our government both need to realize they are the ones responsible for these shootings. Where did our government send this young man too? An illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are the reason he came back into our society and created the chaos that he did. By putting these men that are deranged on our police forces, they are creating the environment where we no longer just hear of military killing their wives. It explains the constant killing of people stopped by the cops. How many of these cops have to go through mental evaluations to make sure they are competent to be on a police force? Johnson was a hero when he came back from murdering innocent children and others, but now he is a killer. There is no logic to the USA. Country filled with no feelings about anything but greed. Iraq vets= trigger happy cops. Stop allowing returning military to be cops. They are UNSTABLE and crating havoc in every corner of our nation.

They do realize and they know what they are doing. We have created our enemies in our “War on Terror”. If we did not create them we would not have them and the there would be peace. Peace is bad for business.

The same thing is happening here in our country just over a longer time period and much quieter. In our country they are using “Silent weapons for Quite Wars” but in the middle east they are full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes.

im just jumping in this thread here. pardon. let’s be specific about who created our enemies and the war on terror — bush, cheney, rove and neocons associated with PNAC and the right wing 501c3 organizations etc. true conservatives are not bigots, but the gop cannot be said to be truly conservative — they are extremists.

“bush, cheney, rove and neocons associated with PNAC and the right wing 501c3 organizations etc”

I would add Clinton 1 and 2 along with Reagan, Obama and Carter all of which perpetuated a foreign policy that has lead us up to where we are today

I am not putting blame on Dems or Repubs as I feel both parties are in this. The current situation started back in the 80′ in Afgan with the Mujahideen and database used to keep records of the Mujahideen. Just a little history, the name of the database was Al-Qeada.

““Al Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan.”

You could also trace some of this back to 1953 and the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran.

Hillary is not GOP but she is full boar military intervention and has supported everything military the neo-cons have done.

This is not a political agenda, the difference between Repubs and Dems is smoke and mirrors, all just talking points for the talking heads. The undermining of us and the rest of the world for power and profit knows no political side.

If you vote Repub or Dem you are guilty of supporting corrupt politicians. If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are guaranteed to get evil. A vote for Trump or for Shrillery is a vote to maintain and expand the oligarchy that is our government.

Liberal and conservative are STUPID labels that when used to a describe a political ideology bear little to no resemblance to the dictionary definition of the words.

Liberal and conservative are used to keep us divided when in reality there is no liberal way or conservative way there is only a right way and a wrong way and IMHO neither party is doing anything the right way. Not the constituents of the parties but the leaders. The fault of the constituents is in there voting based on party not on principals. When you vote for one of the two parties you tell them they will have your support no matter the corruption.

A Ron Paul Libertarian who changed parties to vote for Sanders in the primary. There are a lot of us out there.

And no I will not be voting for Trump or Shillery but I will be voting.

Sanctimonious cries of nonviolence will not help. “Retraining” can only do so much. Until we move to the broader question of policy, we can expect to see Walter Scotts and Freddie Grays with some regularity. And the extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Walter Scotts and Freddie Grays [black men murdered by cops] is the extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Micah Xavier Johnsons [the black man who murdered the Dallas cops].

That post seems to invoke/associate itself with the virtual stalking campaign Mona has reported to us. It should be removed and you should either stop that sort of atrocious behavior or be banned from the forum.

So much work to do to reform policing and get CIVILIAN CONTROL (which elected officials at local & state level plus, the judiciary SHOULD be exercising–but,don’t) Here’s something we’re trying in MINNEAPOLIS,MN: getting Nov. ballot measure that would REQUIRE police officers to be SELF-INSURED (like MALPRACTICE insurance). Too many complaints.settlements, a cop is no longer insurable: NO insurance, NO job as a cop. Get more info on the many solutions to police brutality at COMMUNITIES UNITED AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY (CUAPB) http://www.cuapb.org Or TUNE IN FRI.JULY 15 (9am central)to “Catalyst” on KFAI RADIO 90.3 FM Mpls 106.7 FM St. Paul ONLINE after broadcast on CATALYST show at kfai (dot) org See COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL POLICING on FACEBOOK #InsureThePolice

Just about every single time a tragedy like this strikes, there is a criminal investigation. In cases where the officer is not held criminally liable, there is a civil trial where the officer, the department and the city where it took place are all held libel.

In other words, there is accountability. I get it. You want more, you want prison time for the big bad meanies you dream up but fortunately you do not get to pick how the world works. Fortunately we do not live in your fantasy land. Fortunately, that is a collective decision which allows us to week out the radical, illogical folk like yourself.

Officers make mistakes. Those mistakes are not all based on racism like so many of you here allege. I suspect most of these officers who made these tragic mistakes just aren’t very good officers… not everybody was built to be a good one, even with good intent.

Officers make mistakes. Those mistakes are not all based on racism like so many of you here allege. I suspect most of these officers who made these tragic mistakes just aren’t very good officers… not everybody was built to be a good one, even with good intent.

But it’s so much easier to cry racism!

Lydia said nothing in her comment about racism. In fact, she put forth a good model for holding cops with bad records responsible for their actions, a method for weeding out those officers which even you admit exist that really shouldn’t be police officers.

You need to address what people are actually writing instead of turning it into something it’s not in order to excuse rampant misbehavior that should not exist in any police department.

If citizens are held responsible for mistakes that cost lives, then so should the police. They are, after all, labeled “public servants” for a reason. It’s time to start treating them like that.

You cops will never stop sugar-coating your wholesale crimes against the population that you are supposed to serve.

These are not “tragic mistakes” made by cops,; what you do have is plain and simple terrorism against the population using their weapons to threaten instant death of those who disagree.

Since there is no accountability or justice in the courts, violence and social disorder are the normal results.

Unless every citizen is permitted to arm and defend themselves, the polarization between these terrorists called policemen and the rest of society will continue to escalate and bring major consequences and casualties.

there is a civil trial where the officer, the department and the city where it took place are all held libel.
….
Fortunately, that is a collective decision which allows us to week out the radical, illogical folk like yourself.

I do not have any idea what the first part means. But the second sounds as though you are in favor of “weeding out” people who do not agree with you.

You’re blind. Cops are hunting black people. Johnson’s killing spree was a revenge attack. Logically to be expected. A reaction to deliberate state murder arising from systemic tyranny. Absent ***credible*** efforts to hold state agents accountable, this act of rebellion will certainly be repeated. Killer cops, the Blue Wall, phony “investigations” by complicit mayors, prosecutors, etc, all covered up by a govt and media narrative of unquestioning political correctness (99.9% of cops are good, cops are heroes who put their life on the line every day, tough stressful job, innocent tragic mistakes, inherent criminality of the underclass, etc).

The secret approval of Micah Johnson’s action, and the belief that it was heroic, will naturally be criminalized and prohibited from being written or spoken aloud, nevertheless it is real.

There will be weeping and wailing and moaning and speechifying……. over the dead cops,…. but there will be no correction of police violence. In fact, it will get worse. Cops attacked do not become thoughtful, they will become even more intent on control, they will become more violent. And now that Micah Johnson has “shown the way” the violence against police will escalate as well.

I’m live far away from this social pathology and have no part in the fight, but I can speak/write the forbidden truth: the cops brought this on themselves, and deserved it.

Waaahhhhh! Steroid taking cops now overreact to social media. Maybe if you were peacekeepers and SERVED the public rather than generate revenue via arbitrary laws, the community would be more supportive. Police are militarized, using combat techniques on US citizens, hiring low IQ Steroid takin morons… I could go on. Me? ROBBED by two cops in NYC in the mid 1990s. I don’t see a need for them… police your own communities. All that said, executing cops is retarded. We may need them in the coming civil war if they choose the right side… otherwise, this may be just the beginning.

Naomi LaChance = Robert Macey v2.0 and this website is going downhill fast if you people continue to publish this crap.

GG, Scahill and Poitras… why do you support this?

People are not getting arrested for criticizing police or “casual commnets.” They are getting arrested for threatening to kill people. That has always been illegal and likely always will be.

Nobody has the right or the freedom to threaten to kill. Think I’m wrong? Go threaten to kill your significant other with witnesses and see what happens. Be thankful if the only charge is disorderly conduct.

Acting like it’s unjust to charge somebody with a misdemeanor over this is outrageous and gross.

Police departments think that they should be ABOVE EVEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT ….even when they KILL UN-ARMED PEOPLE & do so WHILE VIOLATING POLICE PROCEDURES (example: ERIC GARNER murdered ON TAPE with CHOKEHOLD that NYPD BANNED 20 YEAR S AGO: cop still on the force & NOT indicted). Frankly, it’s amazing it took this long for someone to snap like the Dallas mass shooter did. HOW LONG CAN POLICE MURDER PEOPLE & GET AWAY WITH IT?????

Reader alert: charliethreee is a troll who’s been infesting comments here for many months. He shtick is purporting to be a very leftwing person who is just oh so burdened with having to point out all the tragic errors made by various Intercept writers.

Reader alert: Mona’s son is a police officer. She likely raised him with love and he is probably a good guy, not a racist, authoritarian dick of a cop. It is possible to be critical of those you love, concepts you love. I love all of the hippies here. Your hearts are in the right place but sometimes you logic is flawed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping my fellow hippies see that civil war is not the answer. It’s possible to try and do better through other means.

One wonders how a person gets to be a law professor with such a limited understanding of U.S. history. He has obviously never heard of the “Red Scares” of past decades. If non-fiction is too difficult I suggest starting with “1984” or “Fahrenheit 451″.

“We might be seeing more arrests right now … But that doesn’t mean in the end that this will result in convictions.”

This professor needs to leave his ivory tower once in while. Then he might understand that an arrest, even without conviction, results in losing one’s job with zero chance of getting another, along with not being able to rent an apartment, etc.

There will be many more arrests for posting impure thoughts until Joe Sixpack figures out that all the blah-blah about “Freedom of Speech” is propaganda and that he is actually living in a police state.

Meanwhile police killings, both by and of police, will likely continue to increase. The modern nation-state, built on a foundation of violence, only knows one tactic. When repression fails to keep a population under control, the response is always more repression. The future looks very, very grim.

So your theory is that you should have the freedom to make any threat your precious heart desires and not having that right = a police state slash repression in your brain? Wow. Good luck with your sanity sir.

There are good cops and bad cops, like all areas of life. There is never a justification for harming innocent people, including police officers, but maybe if the U.S. Department of Justice had provided real justice for the bad cops (not all cops), citizens wouldn’t take justice into their own hands.

Also subordinate officers take orders from their top management, so the lower level officers are the least culpable. The subordinates are “ordered” to do unconstitutional Stop & Frisk searches in Harlem but not the Wall Street neighborhood (which violates the 14th Amendment).

If there had been real community policing in places like Ferguson, with cops walking the beat instead of driving through, they would have known Michael Brown was never a threat to them and woukd have never shot him.

The DOJ Bears much of the responsibilty for not dishing out Justice to the bad police leaders and mayors that give those unconstitutional orders to their sunordinates.

The DOJ doesn’t have jurisdiction to prosecute a local officer or a local mayor… local prosecutors do that. So why are you blaming DOJ? Heck, DOJ put Ferguson on a correction plan to try and prevent what happened there from happening again.

I’m curious: so what you are saying is that blacks are dying as a result of racist local cops AND racist federal officials?

That is the only possible cause of the problem to you? You are absolutely not open to any other theories?

I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded? Why is it so hard for you to accept that there is a possibility that the cause of this problem is not primarily racism? Racial profiling is real, of that there is no doubt. But I think there are other factors at play also.

How is me saying that just plain wrong?? It’s just a theory. Your position is a theory as well.

Actually federal law has the most effective statutes for policing local officials, which federal prosecutors enforce. Local prosecutors have too many conflicts of interest to be effective.

Any African-American leader from the Civil Rights era will tell you that local prosecutors simply aren’t the best to do this job.

Under Article VI of the United States Constitution – each and every official (local, state and federal) has an oath-sworn DUTY to protect the constitutional rights of all persons (citizens and non-citizens) within their legal jurisdiction. If one level of government is derelict in that duty, another level or branch of government can “check & balance” that disloyal official.

So invoking the assassination of Trump wont get you arrested but if you dare to invoke killing a cop or worship cop killer will. Why didn’t the protestor with sings invoking the assassination of trump were not arrested then?

An Illinois woman, Jenesis Reynolds, was arrested for writing in a Facebook post that she would shoot an officer who would pull her over. “I have no problem shooting a cop for simple traffic stop cuz they’d have no problem doing it to me,” she wrote, according to the police investigation. She was charged with disorderly conduct.

Charging her with disorderly conduct for writing what she did is harassment. The person who did that should be fired and never work in justice again. On the other hand, one of the two recent shootings involved a traffic stop. Is Ms. Reynolds trying to stimulate more such incidents? If not, her post is incredibly stupid; no one who wants to avoid shootings would write something that would make officers involved in traffic stops even more jumpy.

Of course, if those responsible for her arrest and charge wanted to avoid violence, they would not have done what they did. They have blown up any impact here post might have on the safety of police officers.

I think the immediate effect of these statements and the resulting actions of law enforcement is more important than first amendment issues. I do not think any of them will make their way through the court system and have any lasting effect. I do think that they can help trigger more violence now.

Immediate reaction:
• Why can’t I write whatever I want on the internet?
• There was a time in the U.S. when folks challenged ea other to duels.

Now it’s becoming clear why Jorgé Mason wrote that a militia is the natural defense. Putting defense in the hands of others, esp the gov, leads to others or the gov taking “threats” which are free speech rights and denying them. What other right will be denied? Guns.

It really is true then, the 2nd Am is the first and foremost; people go insane over security huh? I really sorta thought that was bullshit but it’s playing out that every Right is connected back to security or armed citizens or the lack and unwillingness thereof.

We’re just trying to keep you safe: ban speech, ban guns, ban writs to have the body, ban…

I love the thought of some government agent being paid to interact with random people on a still largely obscure website. What would the the strategy and objectives of such a paid arrangement entail? Please enlighten me.

Not guilty’ Those statement are not threats. Period. The police in this country has become an impervious cult. We are clearly heading for a civil war. The police is there to help people, not make their lives more difficult. Everything they are doing will just cause more hatred.

Creeping closer and closer to a totalitary society. While it is wrong to make threats and with some police forces want to make anything derogitory towards a policeman a hate crime, this could be a real slippery slope. With police already supported by the courts for just what an officer thinks, just about anything a policeman can thinkup will become a felony….

Many already think of police in a bad light, I don’t think that arresting everybody on what some policeman thinks a person meant is going to win friends but it might influence enemys…

I would not characterize any of those examples as casual, passing thoughts. Those are pretty clear threats demonstrating intent. I would arrest them, too. After all, if you make similar threats about the President, you will get arrested.

Ted Nugent wasn’t arrested after making clear threats to the president.

I’m pretty sure it’s more about how much money you have and how well-connected you are, which stands to reason as the reason police were established in the first place was to protect the property of the moneyed interests against the depredations of the working class. Seriously.

There’s a difference between making a threat and being arrested for it. Nothing I said indicated I was unaware of that difference. I just said they were were clear threats. The premise of the article was that these were criticisms, and of course, these are much stronger than mere criticism.

I don’t care for exaggeration in order to make a point. Walsh said: “This is now war. Watch out Obama. Watch out black lives matter punks. Real America is coming after you.” Seriously? You take that bullshit as a threat against the President?? Maybe there was something else he said that was an actual threat?

Walsh’s utterance hardly can be interpreted as a threat. Trump’s ex-butler on the other hand made a clear call for violence against the President for which he was investigated. Of course, he gets a pass via wcwp (well-connected white privilege). But all of these disparities are well-known. My beef is that the article headline characterized clear threats as mere criticisms, and that is simply not true.

“No one has spoken to him about that tweet. Not the Secret Service, not the FBI, not even his local LEO. No one.”

The Supreme Court ruling Elonis v. United States may be relevant to your comment. Is it reasonable to think a sitting US Senator would kill the president? Compare that to a person angry about these police killings and whether that threat is more credible?

Maybe because there’s not a threat anywhere in his silly statement?
“Threatening the President of the United States is a class E felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States” Saying “Real America is coming after you” is meaningless as far as threats go.

If you would arrest those people, what would you have done to the gun-toting ranchers (Cliven Bundy and his buddies) who threatened federal cops with guns and took back confiscated cattle by threat of force?

What people like you don’t get is that this is a highly biased and unfair system. Black people get arrested for making threats, but white people can threaten cops with guns and get away with it (just imagine what the cops’ reaction would have been if those were Black Lives Matter or anti-war protesters instead of white ranchers). Not to mention that some of these comments were not threats at all, and none of these threats seem credible.

Cliven Bundy would have been arrested. Oh, guess what? He has in fact been arrested. But no way on Earth would the same kid glove treatment have been extended to non-whites taking up arms to oppose payment of fees owed to the government. What people like you don’t get is that most journalists here bend situations into pretzels to grind axes when they really don’t need to. This article should have been about who can say what and not get arrested. After all, that’s what all of the comments are about. It has nothing to do with “criticism” and everything to do with real threats and the unequal consequences.

So, you admit to being a troll. If you don’t like the articles here, please don’t comment. You should read articles on sites you like instead. The journalists here are the best investigative journalists in the world and aren’t bending anything. It’s YOU who doesn’t get it; either that or you’re just making troll comments. If your comments are honest (they’re not correct, but they might be honest), you’ve been so brainwashed by corporate and establishment propaganda and so used to fake journalism that you don’t recognize real journalism when you read it.

As to threats, that’s another thing you don’t get. The point is that most of these comments are NOT threats, and the ones that are don’t rise to the level of credibility that would cause them to lose their First Amendment protections.

Finally, if you can’t tell the difference between threatening government agents with guns and writing comments, you’re totally lost. Bundy et al. should have been shot on the spot for possessing guns in that situation, period. (Ranchers are complete assholes who have done more environmental damage to the U.S. west with their cattle than any other industry. While that’s another issue, people should know that and boycott beef for that reason alone.)

One way or the other, the whole things is that all this emerges as result of the “shoot to kill policy” by the police. If this kind of force is really necessary, then disabling a potential threat can be done by hitting the none lethal body parts.

As seen on the Baton Rouge footage the officer placed the gun close to the chest and heart region. These are areas with vital organs and a shot will cause heavy blood loss. Since this person was already constrained by the offices while keeping him down. If the use of gun in this situation really would have necessary to stop the person from using a gun then they could have targeted the shoulder or arm to immobilize him.

But he said it was a sign of the times. These days, almost all communications are recorded in some capacity. “This new world where things aren’t forgotten is going to be different,” Schneier said. “And you’re seeing one manifestation of it in casual comments that are resulting in arrest.”

Nice from Bruce Schneier, but I would rather have it from my niggah. Will Linus Torvalds be next coming to terms with the thought police for not being politically correct?

Profanity and insults have long been management tactics of Linux creator Linus Torvalds. He once memorably gave the middle finger to Nvidia; separately, he announced that he would not change Linux “to deep-throat Microsoft.” Torvalds has also shown no qualms about being rude to those who disagree with him.

OT, but I’m pretty sure Linus will continue in his accustomed style without meaningful challenge. He is, after all, the de facto Dictator for Life of the Linux kernel world and not always a benevolent dictator.

Anyway being a kernel developer is a voluntary hobby and I’m pretty sure most of the hobbyists in question knew what the Big Cheese was like before they got involved. ;^)

Oh yes, USCIS will soon be asking visa applicants to disclose their social media id’s.

“Asking” you said?

It would be more like: Ms, what did you mean when you said during your conversation on facebook with Tim on August 12th, 2008 at 6:43 PM Mediterranean time that you doubt Obama ever took civic 101 since he couldn’t even say how many states were part of the union? … and … Ha! I see you do have a sense of humor! That bumper sticker was hilarious, but it is not “patriotic” so in the mean time you may want to start filling out this 8 page letter of intent to then walk down line 5 for a full body, including rectum check by the TSA prior to …

It’s just the same kind of comment that’d get anyone else arrested. Calling for the death of someone, threatening to destroy someone’s building, police officers are still individuals, and this kind of speech is not just criticism: these are death threats. It’ so absolutely normal that their authors get arrested, shame on you for trying to water it down in order to make the authors of these threats look innocent and arrested for simple criticism.

Utter bullshit. Saying someone is a hero, regardless of who that someone is or what he’s done, is not a threat. While it’s illegal to CREDIBLY threaten someone with violence, it’s not illegal to glorify violence, regardless of whether we like violence.

I think the cops should arrest the Paki General who lives in my community. After swindling trillions of dollars from us in the name of fighting terrorism and Al Quada, today I hear the Pakies are supporting Chinese folks in the occupation of illegally built islands.

Cops usually do a decent job arresting the right folks, but in this case I am finding them to be very delinquent. They should read the online newspapers and websites like Intercept properly instead of wasting their time with personal accounts in Facebook and Twitter.

“Paki General who lives in my community. After swindling trillions of dollars from us in the name of fighting terrorism and Al Quada, today I hear the Pakies”

Suggest that ethnic epithets are unwarranted and best not used and should you doubt this, just substitute a different ethnic/religious slur and see how that sounds/feels.
For example, – but if I actually did, I would hope that my post would be removed. So no example from me. I feel bad enough having pasted your quote.

Pakies are people from Pakistan, Afghans are people from Afghanistan, Finns are those from Finland, etc., etc. These are all official terms. Your complaint is funny. I know Pakies are not very fond of being publicly identified because their treachery is now fully exposed. But then we can’t call them Lapps without casting aspersions on a very decent and peaceful country.

i don’t care about “free speech” anybody who makes those kind of comments deserve to be prosecuted. nobody has the right to threaten anybody with being shot and killed. those are stupid people. i hope they spend years behind bars.

I don’t agree. Stating in a cyber-forum such general statements as “I hope the police are killed” is not the same thing as directing a particular threat at a particular person or a particular institution. Even then, the plausibility of the threat has to be taken into consideration.

Already the Authoritarians who have taken and now control law enforcement ,have begun to shoot or imprison those they consider dissidents. I ,for one, will continue to resist these despots. The Authoritarians only offer subjugation and intensive micro-management by all areas of government and all demand immediate and blind obedience and extortion level tribute in the form of over-taxation. Very soon they will attempt to take it all.

It is one thing to criticize and it is another thing completely to actually threaten. No one should be arrested because they made a 1st Amendment protected critical comment no matter how stupid, infantile and asinine the criticism may be.
But, I believe if the posts are actually threatening to do harm to police and anyone’s safety and lives then they should be arrested.

It is interesting that the police can arrest someone for expressing sympathy for a murderer, but I would bet they would never arrest you if you expressed sympathy for one of the policemen who have murdered unarmed people. I would also bet that the police would not arrest someone who expressed threats against BLM members, or muslims, or Latinos or blacks. Just don’t say anything threatening about anyone in power.

As the pigs said in Animal Farm, we are all equal, but some of us are more equal than the others.

Ah, but don’t you remember when that great defender of the US Constitution, Senator Jessie Helms of NC, told a sitting president, if he dared to come to North Caroline, he’d better bring body guards. And what did the FBI do? Typical when dealing with GOPers they “interviewed” Helms, not to see if he’d actually made the threat, but to determine if the Senator had information that some third party was contemplating an assault on President Clinton.

Well, one thing about censorship is that all the cool kids know a way around it, or have buddies who can protect them. It’s the sad sacks the bullies pick on who end up saying or doing the wrong thing so that people can have more to bully them about later, especially when the judges are some of the bullies.

I mean after all, if any president goes to any state, he better bring body guards. That’s just the normal business of running the Imperium. No threat there at all really.

You told the joke, but you left out the punch line. The post calling for cops to be killed that the shooter actually *read* was not one of the ones prosecuted here, and was deliberately *not* deleted by Facebook, even as people complained last December: http://www.illwriteit.com/african-american-defense-league-calls-for-death-of-white-cops/ I don’t know why they had respect for freedom of speech there, but *my* guess is that the shooter was inspired by a site set up by police infiltrators. I’d thought that would make the censors too embarrassed to go after regular shmucks for lesser things, but clearly that is not working out here.

Her statement seems to be an opinion rather than a threat. I would be highly surprised if a judge didn’t immediately toss this out.

I think the government has done some really outrageous stuff to interfere with free speech in this country. I encourage the Intercept to talk more about how the government is suppressing free speech.

I have been looking into the constitutionality of the 2012 law that allowed the federal government to engage in Propaganda. I think this is one of the worst things that our government has ever done and should be ruled by the courts to be flat out unconstitutional because the government’s voice can drown out the voice of private citizens and can be used to slander and defame private citizens and can be used to affect (alter) the democratic process. Furthermore, does the 2012 law allow the government to put out false information? These are really important questions that the intercept should look into. People might be shocked when they find out the answers.

Why? Who have you seen “around here” making similar claims as the one you’re applauding, or actually mocking, by William Torres? Quite some time ago, very early on in the existence of The Intercept>/i>, there was a discussion here about why we think some frequent visitors to the comment threads were making claims similar to the claim that William Torres has made. Many of the claims referenced were much wilder than that. One of the reasons chosen by some, including me, was that the commenters making such claims were attempting to tar </The Intercept by posting such claims. Apparently you, and unknown visitors to The Intercept would either pretend that those sorts of claims were typical of The Intercept commenters, or decide honestly that they were.

I have encountered enough people making outlandish or unhinged statements around these parts (e.g “Cops are Terrorists. Period) to conclude that TI attracts a small but noticeable contingent of 9/11 truthers, people “targeted” by government “nanodevices,” ones who copy pasta an entire rant full of nonsense, and those with an unhealthy penchant to use the term “Stasi” in their posts.

Yeah, that’s what I meant, and gathered from your comment that you meant. Exactly. People who make those sorts of posts here don’t “fit in just fine around here,” they are, for the most part, ridiculed or ignored. An exception being specific references to cops terrorizing people and communities. But that is factual and backed up, unfortunately, by endless examples and evidence.

An exception being specific references to cops terrorizing people and communities. But that is factual and backed up, unfortunately, by endless examples and evidence.

I am an unapologetic “911 truther” in so far that I will not allow my reason to be clouded by government generated bull shit like the 911 commission report. High rise, steel frame buildings are subject to the laws of science. If the commission’s explanations for the collapse of three high rise, steel frame buildings do not comport with the laws of science, then those explanations must be wrong. The visually recorded free fall nature of all three buildings alone defy the official explanations given for their collapse. Yet, those who arrogantly assume to hold all “truthers” in contempt are always at a loss to supply an explanation for this simple fact alone. Rather, they post an endless string of anonymous bullshit that is intended to summarily condemn all skepticism in an effort to skirt the most basic scientific inconsistencies in the official 911 commission report.

The subject of “targeted” individuals is another case in point. For nearly three decades, thousands of individuals were declared to be mentally deranged for even suggesting that they had been the unwitting target of government funded “mind control” experiments. Yet in the mid-seventies, the Church committee revealed a longstanding pattern of government funded projects that intentionally targeted unwitting test subjects with an array of mind altering experiments that left many of them permanently damaged. Included in this array of experiments was the use of very powerful mind altering drugs including LSD, mescaline, opiates, and psilocybin. US, Canadian, and British servicemen were all used as unwitting guinea pigs; as were prisoners in state and federal penal institutions and mental health facilities within those countries. Even the general public were made unwitting subjects during that thirty year period including the entire population of a small Swiss town. Chemical, electronic, radiation, hypnotic, and brute force (trauma induced) methods were all used in an effort to compromise the psychic integrity of its test subjects in a manner that could render them permanently incapable of resisting the will of those who aspired to control their actions. Much of the science derived from those experiments has been refined and incorporated into the enhanced interrogation techniques that are being used today against detainees as could be seen at places like Abu Ghraib. Yet, for thirty years (cir 1945-1975), those who claimed that they were illegally targeted by any one of the numerous government funded “scientific” experiments that fell under the general heading of MK-Ultra were viciously ridiculed and summarily dismissed in exactly the same manner as the two of you agree is appropriate for those whose own plight cannot be adequately proven by design. Fucking arrogant!!!

If you want to defend the Targeted Individual people and their claims, do that by defending them with evidence or whatever you can or think you can come up with. Posting a screaming phony tirade at me is just exploitation of them, which does nothing to aid them in their plight, it only serves you in your personal, individual rampage.

(1) Allowing history to inform my opinion in a way wherein I reserve judgement of those who currently claim that they are being surreptitiously victimized in a manner eerily similar to those targeted by MK-Ultra “does nothing to aid them in their plight.” Rather it is a form of “exploitation.”

(2) People who make those sorts of posts here should be summarily ridiculed and/or ignored. In your mind, it is better that potential victims of government and/or corporate covert harassment should be preemptively viewed as mere plants whose sole purpose is to “tar the Intercept’s” reputation.

Now, which position do you believe is better suited to objectively weighing the unsubstantiated claims of alleged targeted victims?

It is amazing that when one strips away all of the obfuscating invective from your own arguments, how your remaining core claims amount to little more than “outlandish or unhinged statements.”

No, What I said is what I said. You can fluff up, coddle, and pucker up on as many the straw men as you will, but it doesn’t change what I said, which was: exploiting the people who claim to be TIs for the purpose of going on one of your rants, adding absolutely nothing to the the issue that TIs claim to suffer from, is self explanatory: It’s the boorish behavior that you commonly display–especially when cornered. The fact that I don’t believe what the people who claim to be TIs experience doesn’t diminish the fact that I find your exploitation of them quite sad and abhorrent.

Did you come to this conclusion before or after you and your fellow gate keepers decided to preemptively and summarily determine that these tortured souls are “taring” the image of the intercept by virtue of simply airing their concerns in what they mistakenly believed was a sympathetic forum? Maybe you can enlighten us all with your “self evident,” uniformly applicable diagnosis of their condition… or of the self-evident, single “issue” that plagues them all.

No again. My “self explanatory” was and is about my initial description of your continued exploitation of them by posting your rants aimed at me. You’re continuing to do more of the same. Your cutting off of the sentence with your abbreviated quote is just another lie, which can be seen just by scrolling up a tiny spec to my actual comment. You’ve become increasingly pathetic.

That’s my final comment to you in this thread. You’re incapable of honesty and or reading comprehension, and as far as I can tell, no one else gives a shit.

There we have it folks. When once again put to the test, Kitt is rendered incapable of defending his chronic arrogance. Notice how he constantly deflects and preemptively projects in the effort to actual avoid defending his original posture/position. Maybe all of that arrogance and vulgar hostility is just a mask for cowardice…

OT and everyone but truthers (whom I definitely “arrogantly” hold in contempt) and anyone who is confused or concerned about their claims can ignore this post.

I am simply unable to let the stubborn stupidity go unchallenged.

“The visually recorded free fall nature of all three buildings alone defy the official explanations given for their collapse. Yet, those who arrogantly assume to hold all ‘truthers’ in contempt are always at a loss to supply an explanation for this simple fact alone.”

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I am so glad that Mr. Salzmann (AKA Mona) chose to cut and paste the final NIST report concerning the 9/11 collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, & 7 because by this time NIST was forced to retract preliminary findings that concluded a different rate of collapse for the purpose of avoiding having to explain how a high rise, steel frame building could collapse at free fall speed directly into its own footprint as a result of a fire that was largely limited to a small number of floors. As the arguments concerning the evolution of NIST’s methodology and corresponding finding reveals a consistent pattern of bad science, it is virtually impossible to speak with any clarity to the issue in such a limited venue. However, to those of you that still have open minds concerning the science upon which the commission’s findings was based, I recommend that you begin with the work of Kevin Ryan (cite manager for environmental testing at Underwriters Laboratory who was fired for questioning UL’s own lack of scientific rigor in investigating the cause of the collapses) who has produced a number of books and videos that clearly demonstrate a conscious intent on the part of NIST to obscure the actual nature of the aforementioned collapses via the use of junk science:

Youtube videos by Kevin Ryan:

New Standard for Deception: The NIST WTC Report (rec 2006)

Kevin Ryan : On Why NIST’s 9/11 WTC Reports are False & Unscientific

The Evolution of the Fire-based Theory for Building 7 (rec 2011)

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – Day 1 Kevin Ryan (2011)

This is just a sample of the information that has been produced since 9/11 that has totally exposed NISTs findings as fraudulent in nature. The 2011 Toronto hearings on 911 is worth listening to in its entirety as it includes 10 years of research.

Although this case is bigger that what it looks because the NYPD-Counterterrorism Bureau is involved and there is plenty of evidence on the table, they do it on a daily basis a get away with it.

During the first incident they raided my apartment without a warrant at gun-point after breaking its door, and I was handcuffed while they searched everywhere but not arrested.

A second similar incident happened six months later.

Had I protested, they would have assassinated me and fabricated a defense.

There are plenty of documents about the case; and when I contacted the offices of Mayor de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bratton was told that since “no one was shot or killed” they were not interested in investigating.

> During the first incident they raided my apartment without a warrant at gun-point after breaking its door, and I was handcuffed while they searched everywhere but not arrested.

Do you have a receipt for the door repair in either instance?

There are plenty of documents about the case; and when I contacted the offices of Mayor de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bratton was told that since “no one was shot or killed” they were not interested in investigating.

Are any available online, publicly? You seem to want your story heard so why not provide some of them as proof of what you said occurs. Until you can do this, why should we take your claims seriously?

Start with the dates, then what they took, were you arrested, charged, served time. Did you get a lawyer, file suit?

I didn’t say “all” cops, you did. The argument that not all cops are bad is an irrelevant distraction. Was everyone fighting and working for the Nazis a bad person? Of course not.

Good and decent people can end up working for evil systems that are accepted parts of their societies, and make no mistake, this system is totally evil (racist, army of the rich, etc.). Whether all cops are terrorists is not the issue; the issue is whether cops are terrorizing Black and other people of color and poor people. From living in the ghetto and seeing it first-hand, I can vouch for the fact that they are.

As I recall. Daniel Webster the orator, at the coming of America as a nation, said: “Without dissent there is no change”. The powers as exist today recognize this and to stifle change, they snuff out dissent….weather it be me as a commenter on this site, an indivual on social media or a journalist charged under some near ancient law for informing us of the truth about our government.

Different rules for different fools..
I have to smile to myself when I read comments about your “justice system”… You HAVE NO justice system !! Period !!
Enough with the hand-wringing already, action is required now.
As for exactly what that action should be, hell, I don’t know.. & I don’t particularly care. American citizens have no interest in how their government/s commit crimes abroad (if u did u would stop it), why should we “foreigners” care when the “machine” starts eating itself, can’t be too soon for a LOT of non-US people….
Some cops got shot & you’ve got your panties in a wad… get over it..it might just be the new normal.
Do I think those cops should have been shot ? no.. but the “law” of actions & consequences said this was always gonna happen…
BTW I know my post is TOTALLY politically incorrect, like Steve’s, but thats somethin called free-speech which some of us still have.

I know the intricacies of our legal system (and its functioning and systemic abuses) are difficult to sort out, but . . .

Steve’s comment may be repulsive to all the sensitive souls here…

Steve’s comment is repulsive to all decent humans. And if you think this space is populated with sensitive souls, you must new new around here. ;^)

His comment is, however, perfectly legal, protected speech.

but here’s the thing… He’s more likely to get arrested than this guy.

Well, it’s possible that some dumb cop or prosecutor (we have an abundance) would arrest or charge Steve, but there is virtually no chance that any charges would stand the test of a trial.

As for the vile, racist cop, I doubt that he will be arrested, either. If he wrote nothing more directly threatening than the nasty shit reported in your link, it’s probably not specific enough to even begin a criminal case (again, some might try) and it’s very unlikely that a conviction (a jury might convict, because he’s such a scary-creepy asshole) would be sustained on appeal, because it would be difficult to prove his subjective intent to threaten (weird as that seems). See Elonis v. United States, cited above.

OTOH, the cop lost his job and, in civil court, he’s very likely to be found liable for very large damages — far beyond what he or his personal insurance will be able to pay. His life is going to be very difficult from now on, quite possibly as long as he lives.

American citizens have no interest in how their government/s commit crimes abroad (if u did u would stop it)

The first part of your statement is mostly correct. The second part reveals that you don’t understand: the US is an oligarchy and what “the people” want doesn’t make much difference, especially in matters of foreign policy.

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

BTW I know my post is TOTALLY politically incorrect, like Steve’s, but thats somethin called free-speech which some of us still have.

You referred to yourself as a “foreigner” and boasted that you have free speech, apparently, in your view, more freedom of speech than Americans have. I suppose we should know where you live in order to make detailed comparisons, but there is nowhere on Planet Earth where speech is better protected than in the US. You have an erroneous view.

“there is nowhere on Planet Earth where speech is better protected than in the US.”

Wow, really ? .. did u even read the article heading or is this your idea of a joke.
Re. my ” boast” of free speech, it was not intended as a boast, but that u took it as one speaks volumes… and your parting line “You have an erroneous view.” … yet u never really did show me different. The “intricacies” (as u call them) of your justice system are really just a corrupt system operating as designed.
The cop I linked to will simply move to another PD & life will go on, his financial standing will be protected by his “union”.
As for my country of origin… thought my moniker might have given u a clue ?? LOL..
Just for the record… I hold no animosity towards the average american citizen but the rogue state that is the USA really needs reigning in… from within OR without. But then I have a feeling u would probably agree with that statement.
BTW… I have only recently started to post here but I have read , & appreciated, TI articles & posts for quite a long time & have a pretty good grasp of the group dynamics here …. just don’t put me sitting beside that Nate guy.. he’s batshit crazy …LOL…JK

It’s almost as if the police and government and private citizens in the United States have been so mis-educated and dis-informed that they can’t spell out why an impartial system of justice is fundamental to a democratic society.

The problem is that the justice system in the US has turned into little more than a justification for the powerful to commit crimes against the powerless with almost total impunity; mortgage fraud by Goldman Sachs goes unpunished; wealthy white boys who commit rape are given minimal sentences of a few months in local jails while poor blacks or poor whites are sent away to state prisons for many years for the same crime; white kids from wealthy families caught with drugs can have their parents pay multi-thousand dollar bribes to prosecutors to sit on the case till the statue of limitations runs out, with no charges ever filed, while poor people go to jail for a decade for the same crime. Similarly, poor black and poor white and poor Latino people are killed by police with impunity, or harassed on trumped-up charges, and stuck in jail without being able to make bail for months or years.

Thus, it is certainly not at all surprising when people who believe they’ve been denied justice act out of a sense of revenge on the system; in their own minds their behavior is entirely justified. This is just basic human nature dating back to the most primitive beginnings of hunter-gatherer society. If a predator kills a family member, the tribe hunts down the predator and kills it, out of a sense of self-defense and revenge.

And this is why impartial justice systems are so important to a democractic society, in that they combat the cycle of violence and revenge that dominated so many societies throughout human history. Consider the Hatfields and McCoys: one family kills a member of the other family; so to take revenge another member is killed, and so on and on – like the Israelis and the Palestinians, or any number of tribal conflicts around the world. If the state has an impartial justice system, the state acts on behalf of the victim and imprisons the guilty party; that ends the cycle of violence.

However, if the state acts to protect one group of interests and not others, if it only serves wealthy elites, then it all falls apart and some people then feel justified in robbery, assault and murder of others, as well as in attacks on elements of the state itself (aka terrorism).

Thus, if we need something to blame for the murders of police in Dallas, other than the actual shooter (who bears the primary responsibility, certainly), then we need look no further than the corrupt and broken criminal justice system in the United States, a constant source of resentment and tension and rage in many communities in the United States. The whole institution is fundamentally biased and corrupt, and no ‘good cops’ or ‘good prosecutors’ are capable of turning that around by their individual actions.

I completely agree. If it were not for the fact that the entire system is broken, at least some police criminals would be successfully prosecuted. But with prosecutors who fail to do their duty, and judges who impose class-based sentencing, police who shoot unarmed civilians can be assured of no consequences for their actions.

I basically agree. But a punk rocker who traveled the world 20-25 years ago wrote that cops are cops the world over (punks don’t like cops, so he was saying they suck all over). Cops are basically the army of the rich, and that’s true everywhere. In order to get the change you want, with which I agree, we need to majorly change our entire society, not just the current injustice system. For starters, people have to stop lusting after material wealth and start focusing on better things like expanding their consciousness.

Either U.S. cops weren’t so trigger-happy 20-25 years ago, or we just didn’t know about it because there weren’t cameras everywhere (welcome to the Brave New World). Cops in England didn’t even carry guns until not too long ago, and no one was allowed to own a gun (you could rent them to hunt).

U.S. cops seem to be worse than those in other white countries, but it’s hard to tell. And there are certainly countries where the cops are just as bad as here.

You’re missing the point: In general, glorifying violence is not *criticism*. Specifically, calling a murderer a hero and asking for more murders is not *criticism*. The entire headline is a clickbait lie, most of the commenters probably haven’t even read the article.

I haven’t said anything about what should or shouldn’t be legal regarding free speech. It doesn’t matter either way, I am not a US citizen and certainly not a Donald Trump supporter. There’s probably *something* Donald Trump should be arrested for, but that’s also besides the point.

Also, being charged with something (in this case: incitement) doesn’t mean you’re guilty. It’s up to the courts to decide that. Clearly there are laws that allow police (just like any other citizens) to file charges in these cases. Whether these laws should exist and how far they should go is an important debate, but I won’t be having it in the comment section of this website.

The fact that you don’t live here explains why you don’t understand the First Amendment. It’s a constitutional violation to arrest people for speech, with very limited exceptions. Saying that a cop-killer is a hero is not a crime; in fact, the ones who took part in the arrest of those people are the only ones who committed crimes here, specifically by violating their oaths to uphold the constitution.

Well, Steve, you may be relieved to know that your post is fully-protected speech, not a threat, not fighting words, nothing that could result in a successful criminal case (at least until the next step toward full authoritarianism are taken).

OTOH, your post does inform all here that you are a jerk and an asshole, and either a dull-normal troll or a sub-normal attempted shit-disturber.

And now they want to arrest someone for their opinion. Literally. An illegal opinion. “In my opinion Negroes should not be allowed to vote or own property. I don’t care if all those ni**ers the police kill are guilty of anything, being a ni**er is plenty enough reason.” They’d have to lock up more than half the population. But they won’t go there, they’re just interested in opinions about the police.

The police have been subjecting the Black population to systematic, violent racist oppression for over a century but getting angry about it isn’t going to change it? It might be a good first step. Doing nothing seems to have led to continuous escalation of police terrorism and thousands of innocent people dying with complete impunity. Sometimes people will respond to that kind of thing angrily.

If this is the same “Steve” from previous posts, then he is hasbara troll who advocates for violence against those he deems “un-chosen” by his god. In this instance its police officers, in previous posts it was Palestinians and American college students.

Without the Federal Reserve inflating to pay for much of this, the police/NSA/TSA state would be much smaller. It’s basically a police state without tears, since people aren’t paying taxes directly to lock themselves deeper into it.